58 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017
on an exit intervention is because they have been
denied access to the group member. Requiring
the group member to be present at the initial
hearing would be nearly impossible unless the
court issues some kind of subpoena.
178F
179
Moreover, it is unfair to require the group
member to appear in court before the family has
shown any evidence at all.
179F
180 Thus, exit
interventions through the initial court hearing
satisfy the flexible due-process standards.
Other Concerns
Some other concerns regarding the exit
intervention model include its practicality, its
effectiveness, its economic burden, and the
family’s evidentiary burden. The main
practicality concern is whether the parties can
meet civilly for 2 hours each week. The group
member is facing family and friends telling him
how his life should be run, while the family is
confronting their loved one who they believe is
in grave danger. This may be a recipe for
disaster. Although this is a legitimate concern,
the exit intervention may be the family’s last
chance to see their loved one for the rest of their
lives. Therefore, the family will try their best to
make the meetings as constructive and
educational as possible. Because any breaking of
the rules results in the 4-week trial period being
vacated, the family should be given the 4-week
access period to try to make things work.
Furthermore, an argument can be made that 8
hours is simply not enough to make any
meaningful difference with the group member.
After all, some deprogrammings take many full
days to convince the member to leave the
179 Using a subpoena in this way is likely more of a
burden on the group member’s private interest
because it would require him to appear in court and
then go through 4 weeks of intervention.
180 It can be argued that, after the parents have
satisfied the court with enough evidence, the court
would hold another hearing that requires both parties
to be present. Although this may be an effective
safeguard, it seems like an unnecessary use of time
and money when considering that the hearing is for
only 8 hours of the group member’s time.
group.
180F
181 Although 8 hours may not be enough
to make exit interventions as effective as the
family would like, the group member has
constitutional interests in both his liberty and his
ability to freely exercise a religion of his
choosing. Allotting more than 8 hours may
strengthen group members’ arguments and
render exit interventions unconstitutional. Thus,
the family must be able to work with what they
can get. Eight hours may not be sufficient, but
the mere chance of reigniting the group
member’s critical thinking and denouncing his
membership is worth every minute. If the family
and the exit counselors carefully craft their plan
by making every second count, exit
interventions can be just as effective as forcibly
removing the member from the group.
Additionally, since the group member
presumably disappeared, it may be difficult for
the family to put together enough evidence to
obtain the exit intervention. In an easy case, the
family could provide records to the court
showing that the group member has recently
transferred his capital assets and pension to the
group for little or no consideration.
181F
182 This is
especially probative of behavioral changes if the
person never made similar transfers in the past.
However, what happens in a more difficult case
in which the group member had no assets, not
many friends, and a less-than-perfect family life
before disappearing? In a case like this, the
parents must rely on the dangers of the particular
group, including testimony from former
members of the group and experts who are
familiar with the group. The more dangerous the
group seems, the more likely the family member
is in risk of irreparable harm. Families could
also rely on photos showing physical changes.
Even if access to the loved one is restricted, the
family should attempt to capture a photo that
evidences dangerous weight loss, sleep
181 See Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275, 1279–80 (9th
Cir. 1998) (deprogramming lasted 5 days) Kent &
Szimhart, supra note 16, at 246–47.
182 For an example of this, see Andree Brooks, ‘Cults’
and the Aged: A New Family Issue, N.Y. TIMES, Apr.
26, 1986, http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/26/style/
cults-and-the-aged-a-new-family-issue.html?
pagewanted=all (last visited Dec. 12, 2016).
on an exit intervention is because they have been
denied access to the group member. Requiring
the group member to be present at the initial
hearing would be nearly impossible unless the
court issues some kind of subpoena.
178F
179
Moreover, it is unfair to require the group
member to appear in court before the family has
shown any evidence at all.
179F
180 Thus, exit
interventions through the initial court hearing
satisfy the flexible due-process standards.
Other Concerns
Some other concerns regarding the exit
intervention model include its practicality, its
effectiveness, its economic burden, and the
family’s evidentiary burden. The main
practicality concern is whether the parties can
meet civilly for 2 hours each week. The group
member is facing family and friends telling him
how his life should be run, while the family is
confronting their loved one who they believe is
in grave danger. This may be a recipe for
disaster. Although this is a legitimate concern,
the exit intervention may be the family’s last
chance to see their loved one for the rest of their
lives. Therefore, the family will try their best to
make the meetings as constructive and
educational as possible. Because any breaking of
the rules results in the 4-week trial period being
vacated, the family should be given the 4-week
access period to try to make things work.
Furthermore, an argument can be made that 8
hours is simply not enough to make any
meaningful difference with the group member.
After all, some deprogrammings take many full
days to convince the member to leave the
179 Using a subpoena in this way is likely more of a
burden on the group member’s private interest
because it would require him to appear in court and
then go through 4 weeks of intervention.
180 It can be argued that, after the parents have
satisfied the court with enough evidence, the court
would hold another hearing that requires both parties
to be present. Although this may be an effective
safeguard, it seems like an unnecessary use of time
and money when considering that the hearing is for
only 8 hours of the group member’s time.
group.
180F
181 Although 8 hours may not be enough
to make exit interventions as effective as the
family would like, the group member has
constitutional interests in both his liberty and his
ability to freely exercise a religion of his
choosing. Allotting more than 8 hours may
strengthen group members’ arguments and
render exit interventions unconstitutional. Thus,
the family must be able to work with what they
can get. Eight hours may not be sufficient, but
the mere chance of reigniting the group
member’s critical thinking and denouncing his
membership is worth every minute. If the family
and the exit counselors carefully craft their plan
by making every second count, exit
interventions can be just as effective as forcibly
removing the member from the group.
Additionally, since the group member
presumably disappeared, it may be difficult for
the family to put together enough evidence to
obtain the exit intervention. In an easy case, the
family could provide records to the court
showing that the group member has recently
transferred his capital assets and pension to the
group for little or no consideration.
181F
182 This is
especially probative of behavioral changes if the
person never made similar transfers in the past.
However, what happens in a more difficult case
in which the group member had no assets, not
many friends, and a less-than-perfect family life
before disappearing? In a case like this, the
parents must rely on the dangers of the particular
group, including testimony from former
members of the group and experts who are
familiar with the group. The more dangerous the
group seems, the more likely the family member
is in risk of irreparable harm. Families could
also rely on photos showing physical changes.
Even if access to the loved one is restricted, the
family should attempt to capture a photo that
evidences dangerous weight loss, sleep
181 See Scott v. Ross, 140 F.3d 1275, 1279–80 (9th
Cir. 1998) (deprogramming lasted 5 days) Kent &
Szimhart, supra note 16, at 246–47.
182 For an example of this, see Andree Brooks, ‘Cults’
and the Aged: A New Family Issue, N.Y. TIMES, Apr.
26, 1986, http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/26/style/
cults-and-the-aged-a-new-family-issue.html?
pagewanted=all (last visited Dec. 12, 2016).
